ML112370646
| ML112370646 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Duane Arnold  |
| Issue date: | 08/30/1976 |
| From: | Leslie Liu IES Utilities, (Formerly Iowa Electric Light & Power Co) |
| To: | Lear G Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| Shared Package | |
| ML112370647 | List: |
| References | |
| 8880, IEC-76-1306, NUDOCS 8805130034 | |
| Download: ML112370646 (13) | |
Text
OWA ELECTRIc LIGHT AND POWER COMPANY
.LEE Liu VICE PRESIDENT -
ENGINEERING General Office CEDAR RAPIDS. IOWA August 30, 1976 IE-76-1306 56)~35)
T ~
\\~
'II..
'~Li~
-.'~,
Mr. George Lear, Chief Operating Reactors Branch 3 Division of Operating Reactors Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555
Dear Mr. Lear:
On June 3, 1976 we transmitted to you information as required by Section V.B of Appendix I to 10CFR Part 50. We hereby amend that information with the enclosed page changes.
During a review of the information transmitted on June 3 we discovered the GALE input to the cost-beneficial case had not included the use of the charcoal and HEPA on the drywell gaseous discharge. With these inputs now included the cost-beneficial-case is shown to meet the individual dose requirements via the milk path.
The enclosed page changes include results of this corrected input and minor clerical changes.
This amendment-to our evaluation does not change the conclusions stated in our June 3, 1976 submittal, i.e. "The presently installed equipment (less the evaporator) meets Appendix I numerical guidelines for keeping levels of radioactivity in effluents to unrestricted areas as low as reasonably achievable and that additional equipment (including the evaporator) is not advantageous when considered in accordance with the cost benefit criteria of Regulatory Guide 1.110."
Three originals and 37 copies of this amendment are trans mitted herewith. This submittal consisting of this letter and the attachment hereto, is true and accurate to the best of my knowledge and belief.
8805130034 880429 PDR ADOCK 05000331 PDR LL/KAM/ms Enc.
cc:
K. Meyer D. Arnold J. Newman J. Shea (NRC)
J. Keppler (NRC)
L. Root File A-107, A-117 Iowa Electric Light and Power Company By:
Lee Liu Vice President, Engineering Subscribed and Sworn to Before me on this ?6>f day of August, 1976.
(5,-
Rev 8/25/76.
Thus in the case of additional augments, the difference will be positive, representing a reduction in release.
In the case of the elimination of an augment, the difference will. be negative, representing an.increase in release.
These -differences for the alternate cases described in Table 3-1 are shown in Table 3-5.
3.4.4 Inputs for Cost-Beneficial Base The indicated cost-beneficial equipment for the various waste systems is shown in Paragraph 3.9.2.
Since the cost-beneficial case would involve the removal of some equipment pieces which were included in the base case, it is necessary to run the individual doses for the cost-beneficial case to determine whether it meets the requirements of Paragraphs II B & C of Appen dix I. The cost-beneficial case is shown schematically on Figure 3-2.
The GALE inputs for this cost-beneficial case are shown in Table 3-6 and the resulting gaseous releases are shown in Table 3-7.
3.5 Environmental Inputs In order to convert the releases described in Section 3.4 into either individual or population doses it is.necessary to develop a considerable amount of information which describes the pathways at and near the site by which radioactivity released in gaseous effluents might make its way back to individuals.
In this section there are described the parameters which were used in making.dose calculations to individuals and to populations.
Extensive use has been made of the parameters outlined in Reg Guide 1.109, but these have been supplemented, particularly in the case of population doses, with site specific information. In the calculation of population doses.considerable reliance has been placed on the selection of clearly conservative assumptions.
3.5.1 Characteristics of Maximum Individual In the.calculation of doses to individuals maximumly exposed to the gaseous discharses from DAEC the usage factors given in Table A-2 of Reg Guide 1.109 have been assumed.
Doses to individuals have been calculated at three points:
a) Residence 1610 meters NNW b) Residence 2650 meters WNW (real cow) d)
Residence 3000 meters NE (real cow) 3-3
Rev 8/25/76 3.5.5 -Other Pathways No other pathways which might increase the calculated population doses by as much as 10% were found.
3.6 Individual Doses Individual doses for the various Cases described in Section 3.4 are discussed in this Section.
3.6.1 With Base Case The gaseous releases described in Paragraph 3.4.2 were combined with the parameters outlined in Paragraph 3.5.1 and the individual doses were calculated using the methods of Reg Guide 1.109. The results of those calculations are summarized in Table 3-13.
It can be seen that the Base Case gaseous releases meet all of the requirements of Paragraphs II B & C of Appen dix I.
3.6.2 With Cost-Beneficial Case The gaseous releases described in Paragraph 3.4.4 were treated in a similar manner and the results are summarized in Table 3-14.
It can be seen that the doses which result from this case meet.the requirments of Paragraphs II B & C of Appendix I although the infant doses via milk push the limit closely. This implies that all of the non-cost beneficial equipment already included in DAEC could be dispensed with. However, the equipment is already in place and it has been decided to continue using it notwithstanding its non-essentiality. Therefore, to demonstrate compliance with Appendix I the Base Case is used.
3.7 Population Doses Three major food pathways:
a) fruits & vegetables b). milk c) meat and three population-oriented pathways:
- a) noble gas immersion b) ground plane deposition c) inhalation 3-6
Rev 8/25/76 have been evaluated in determining population doses from gaseous discharges.
The first three depend on the crop production described in Paragraph 3.5.4, the last three on the populations described in Paragraph 3.5.3. Population doses have been calculated for the Base Case described in Section 3.2 and the changes in population dose for each of the alternatives described in Section 3.3 have also been calculated.
3.7.1 Base Case The population doses resulting from the gaseous releases from the Base Case described in Section 3.2 and Paragraph 3.4.2 are shown in Table 3-15.
It appears from the total shown in that table that the Base Case treatments may have already passed the point of cost-effectiveness. This point will be examined in more detail in section 3.9.
3.7.2 Change in Population Doses for Alternates Considered Although there appears to be a reasonable chance that the gaseous augments already included in DAEC may have passed the point of cost effective ness, to prove the point conclusively and to respond fully to the requirements of Paragraph II D of Appendix I requires that a series of augments (or sub ments) be hypothetically applied to the Base Case and a cost-benefit analysis be performed on these changes. To this end the alternates described in Section 3.3 were developed, the changes in the gaseous releases were deter mined (see Paragraph 3.4.3), and the changes in population dose resulting therefrom were calculated. The results of these calculations are shown in Table 3-16.
3.8 Cost Changes Associated with Alternates 3.8.1 Methodology For each of the alternate cases listed in Table 3-1, estimates have been made of the capital and operating costs associated with the described change.
The capital costs have been annualized and added to the annual operating costs to arrive at a total annual cost.
For additional augments the resulting costs are additional costs to be compared to the savings in environmental cost which result from population dose reductions. For the instances in which an equip ment sequence is removed (either actually or hypothetically), the resulting 3-7
Rev 8/25/76 costs are cost savings to be compared to increases in environmental cost which result from environmental dose increases.
In either case the test is whether or not the quotient of annual cost in dollars annual change in dose in man-rem is greater than $1000.
To the greatest extent possible the cost estimates used herein are based on Regulatory Guide 1.110.
Only where necessary (and where indicated) have other sources of cost data and other methods of cost estimating been used.
3.8.2 Cost of Alternates The resulting cost increases (or savings) for the alternate cases listed in Table 3-1 are shown in Table 3-17. A detailed backup for these values is given in Appendix A.
3.9 Cost Benefit Ratios By combining the costs associated with the various alternates considered (given in Section 3.8) with the changes in population doses (given in Section 3.7) one-obtains the cost per man-rem change in dose for each.
3.9.1 Alternate Cases The Cost-benefit ratios for the alternate cases listed in Table 3-1 are shown in Table 3-18.
The values given are based on the population values.
It can be seen that there is no additional augment which is justified by cost-benefit and, indeed, there are two augments which have been included in the design which are not cost-beneficial.
3.9.2 Indicated Cost-Beneficial Configuration Based solely on the criterion of cost-benefit the gaseous radwaste systems for DAEC should be those shown in Table 3-19.
As indicated earlier even though this system is cost beneficial, and it does just meet the individual dose requirements, it has been decided to use the Base Case for demonstrating compliance with Appendix I.
3.10 Appendix I Compliance For the Base Case equipment, discussed in sections 3.2 and 3.9 and shown schematically on Figure 3-1 it has been shown herein that:
3-8
S Table 3-6 GALE Innut Terrns for Cos neficial Case--Gases Card Spaces No.
21 73-80 22 73-80 23 73-80 24 73-80 25 43-45 52-54 26 43-45 52-54 68-70 27 73-80 28 73-80 29 43-45 52-54 30 43-45 52-54 31 80 32 73-80 33 73-80 34 73-80 35 73-80 Entry 7.147 9.64L-03 0.029 0.5 Yes Yes Blank Blank Blank 1
0 Blank Blank B lank Blank 1,
18.5 330 2
68 I
""i gland seal steaw maSS steam in reactor gland se'al. hol1. dup time SJAE holdup Drywell vented through chlaccoatl Drywell vented through
'EPA turbine, 110 charcoal no IIlEPA no clean steam no 1EPA on chia-rcoal on gland sel charcoal delay oI SJA io charcoal liector Bldg no IlEPA (hLCCoal Iladwaste ldg charcoal delay syst-enm Kr coef Xe coef No.
oE cond siel 1l; mass of charcoit Units 103 lb/hr 10 6 lb/hr hour hour 10 lb 3-22 Rev 8/25/76
0 AN A NOLD Rev 8/25/76 07/05/76 T'OLE 3-7 GASEPUS PELEAS2S COST-'ENEFICTL CAS' CUR.IFS/E At?)
PELEASE FR'OM STACK 1.5E+013 9.501+03
- 1.
- 0.
6.70E+01 2.94E+3 1.40?E+02 1.62E+2 2.252+03 5. 90 E + c?
0*
- 3.
U..
5.20-C06
- 4. aE+01 G
44+
4 1.802+01 5.10 E+02 7*80E+C2?
5.90E2+02 5.20E-02?
3.80 E-02 3.00E-06 1.00E-05 1.102-05 U.
ISOTOPE TOTAL 2.10E+01 9* cJE.0 :
2.502+5 3.36E-C2 1.59E -3 2 5.71E-03 3
7 G ul1 3.022-33 49 4 -.3,-3?
2.493 + 2 6.542-23 3.252-34 5. 5?
- 0 4 5.23 4-1 4.80 +01i
- 1. 48
+ 0 4 7.60E +2 2.25 C 3 7
3 0
- 2. 74E-93 5*78.3 4 L1 *874E-03 8
- 1. 52c-02
- 1.
157-3?
3.30E-03 3-23 PLANT VENT 1.*05E+1 t*
+
2. 50E
+ 2 2.23-'2 3.36E-%02
- 5. 71E-03 7.42E-01 4.2 1i.6E+12 2*36E+02 I.
6.54E-0 3 3.25E 5.52E-04 0*.
- 3. 92E+02 7.42E2+02 7.431+32 1.412+03 4*27z-01 1*69E+4-0
- 8. 032-L' 1.522-02 1.15E-C2 3.30E-03 AR--41
- 14 4MN-FE--59 CO--50 1Z--S5 KR-83M K R--85M t KR--85 KRD--87 K -
-88 SR--9 0 ZR~-95 S3-124f XE131M XE 133 1 XE-133 X E1351M XE-13 5 XE -137 XE-138 I--131 I--133 CS-134 CS-136 CS-137
)A-140 CE-161
nUAN2 A R !t0L r TAnLE 3-14 Rev 8/25/76 07/05/76, page 1 of 5 MAXIMUM INDIVIDUAL DOSES WrOM EXPOSURE TO GASEOUS RFLEASES (MREM)
COST-BE3NFICIAL CASE
-- ' RESIOENCE 1609 METERS NNW PATHNAY/AGE rPOJP A U L TS NOnL-- f-AS DR7O (GAMM1A)
NO'Li A
IrNa PTON (ACTA)
GO L
U D ELANE
)FPOSTTO INHfALATION STCDE F'.UITS ANnI VGET AILES Fc.
C1 rUITS ANDF VEGITA)ILES TnTAL AOULTS 0' ' S T 1".!
5T0 NDiLc rGAS 7TMNCHI ON (GAMMA) t:0; t AS IMRSTONJ (MFTA)
GROUND PLANr Di'CSITION INJALATION sTO=.2 F UT TS V1r, VEGTAILES F!3:
U rJT'TS AN.)
V2GETACLES TOTAL TPGS CH IL rN N.GL5 GAS I'-i RS TON (GAMMA)
MI'LE 'AS T:HURE STON (C1 TA)
GCU!D OLANE DFPOSITTON IN !jALATTON sTrORF FtUTTS ANC VES=TAB3LES FPESH UITS Al n G=TAtbLES TOTAL ClHILOP N T NFANTS
.I0r.
G.LR I "tM RSTON" (GPMMA)
NO0i L-G rAS TNMERST'N (t)TA)
Gr' OU:Jn PLMAN DrPOSITTON I N-LA L
FTIO11 TOTAL INFANTS RONE 1.91F+00
- 0.
I. 35F+00 1
- 43:-02 4.322cE01 7.48F-3?2 3.75E+0C
- 0.
1.35E',00 7.85=-03 5.340-01 5.3E-02 3.8362400
- 1. *91E+00
- 0.
1.35E+00 8.682-03
- 1. 0 00 9.79E-U2
'4.46E+00 1.912+-00
- 0.
1 *352+00 i1 t4P-02 3.27E+00 LIVER 3.91E+00
- 0.
1.35E+0 0 6.93E-02 1.70E-C1 3.
2E- 02 3.532+00
- 1..91E+0 Q 1.35E+00 L4.97:-02 2.65E-01 3.0 2E- 02 3.602E+00 1.91E+00
- 0.
1.35E+C 3.05E-02 3.9202?
.5.792+00 1.91E+00
?. 8 7" P2 3.29E+00 THYROID
- 0.
1.35E+00 1.1 3r. +00 2.24Z-01 4.24c+00 8.8 E+0 0 1.912+00
- 0.
- 1. 35+0 0 9.72E-1 1
3.18E-01 3.27e+00 7.82E+00 i.912+00
- 0.
1.35E+00 I
C~
+ c 1.32E+00
- 0.
1.352 +00 2.327+00 5.58E+00 KIONFY 1.91c+ 00 0*
1.*352+00 1.73E-L2 7.0'4F-02 3.21E-02 3.3F+ C 1.91E+00
- 0.
1.3540 0
- 1. 21E- 02
- .532-02 2 10E-L2 3.38'+00
- 1. 91E+00
- 0.
1 35it+ 00 7.04E- 02 S.50 F - 0 2 3 2 6 E + 0C 1.912+00
- 0.
1.350+00 4.50!:-03 3.262+00 LUNG 1. q tE + 0 0*
I.35E+00 8 10E-02 3.86E-02
- 4. 9 1 c- 0 3 3. 38E+00 i.91E+00
- 0.
1.35E4-00 7. 85E-02 4.406-01 2.95F-02
- 3. 81 +00 1 912+00
- 0.
- 1. 35E+00 7.09E-02 1.28E-01 6.52E-03 3.47F+00 1 912 +00
- a.
1.352+00 1.05F-01 3.36E4-00 GI-LLI 1.91E+00
- 0.
1.3524000 S.18-03
- 1. 092+00 1.50E-01 4.512+00 1.91E+00
- 0.
1.35CO
'-C 5.17E-03
- 1. 38E+ 00
- 1. 002-01 4.73E+00 1.91E+00
- 0.
1.*35E+00 3.*382-0 3
- 1. 2:+00
- 6. 89C-02
- .5 92000 1.912+00 1.352+00 2.*922-03 3.2624+00 SKIN TOTAL 900Y 2.22E+30 i.32000 1.57;+30.
- 0.
- 0.
- 0.
5.* jj+~ 30 2.22E+00 1.322+00 1.57E+00 0.0
- 0.
- 0.
2.11 E 3 2.222+003 1.32E+-00 1,57E+0
- 0.
- 0.
- 3.
S* 11E+.)00 2.22E 00 1.*32
+ 00 1.572+300
- 0.
5.112+30 0
- 1. 91 +00 C*
+/-.35 + 00 I.91E +0 0
- 0.
1.*352+00 1
-0 3
- 2. 072-31 2.13- -2 3.572+00 1.91+ 00
- 0.
1. 35Z+00 6.392-03 2.07E-0 3.59-:-+00 1.91+00
- 0.
1.35E+00 6*732-03 3.274+-00 Doses above are based upon scmi-infinite plume model for gamma the noble gas immersion gamma and total doses for each organ dose. Use of finite plume model for the stack release point increases by 0.24 mrem/year.
DUANE ARNOLD TAILE' 3-14 MAXIMUM INDIVIDUAL DOSES FROM FXPOSURE TO GASEOUS RELEASES COST-3E!EFICIAL. CA:,
RESIDENCE 2650 METERS WNW
.Rev 8/25/76 07/05/76 PAG=
2 O 5
( MR.E M)
PATHWAY/AGE GOUp
"".-': C S
1I I
( G All A)
T 2LANG 0 POSITTTH ZY' LE t~r rAfl
'!9'TA)LF 0 00FRUIT, v
E3ALS F1.S FRUTTS ZW) V/GJTADRLES t'cAT (CONTAMINA-Y D
'0 GE)
CnwS
- 1ILK (CONTAMTN FOPKAG6E)
C'r 3 '-'ILK (CONTANTH F to)
TOTAL ADULTS NOL
^S H2 STON t G AM M A)
OrL: nA: t.Ti1 TO+,' ( r F R TA)
GZOU!:D PLANE nleagglTI1P' TNPALATION CTO 0RED FRUITS A-NO V:5GETAnLES FoS r R UTT' AND VEG T!rOL S MAT (CONTAMINATF F 7
rAE)
C.
H 'IL' (CO-NTA RI
- rn ArE) c-
'.ilLK (PONTMIN TE'.0)
TOTAL T1eAr=?2 4.*32E-01 0.
4 26F -0.
3.6, F-J3
- 6. 50E-03 1.80F-02?
- 1. gE-03
- 1. 027 +00 4.32E-01
- 0.
4.26'-01 i.95::_03 21 F - 0 1 i.32-01 1.332-02?
2. 11E -
3 1.322-03
- 2. 22E-02 9.002-03 1.03Et+00 LIVER 4.32E-01 U.
4.26E*01 7 722f 1 3
5-02 7.712-03 3.452-03 1.69E-02 6.30E-03 9.48E-01 4.322-01l O.
14 3 20 E 0 3 1.102-02 5.*960-02 6, 59E-03
- 2.
7E- 03 1.55E03
- 2.
5E-0 1 06F-02 9 78E-01 THYROID KIONEY 4.322-01 0*.
4 3 2 E, - 01 2.27E-01 4.96E-02 8.37E-01 5.37c-02 1.2 5 :- 0 3 1.50E+00 1.63E-03
- 3. 58C+ 00 4 32E-01
- 0.
4*
rE i.6-001 7.12"-02 6.83E-01 3.71E-02 9.672-04 2. 25 7+
0 4 2.2bE+00 2.11-03 4.11 0+00 4.322-01
- 0.
4.26 -01
- 4. 23-03
- 1. 75 -02 7 04t C (3
- 4. 32F 01 0.
4.26-01 2*96E-03 2.12E-02 4.62r-03 1.2- 0.C3 8*68 F-04 1,71,-0-2 4. 02L- 03 9.1 0L 0
- LUNG, 4.32F-01 01
- 4. 26
- 01 1.60E-02
- 1. 09E-0?
1 39 E -0 ?
1 4 E-03
- 4. 26E-01 1.5r5E-02 9.562-02 6.42 E-03 1.*16E-03 1.03E-03 4. 55E-03 3.42-03 9.8 6E-C GI-LLI 4 32E-01 4.262-01 1 72!-03
- 2. 29E-01 3.*142-02 8.55-03 3.999-03 5.092-03 2.263E-03
- 1. 1,4S+00 4.32E-01 4.25=-01 1 10P-03 2.87E-01 2.127-2 2 4.712-03 2.332-03 6.77E-03 3,330-03 S.133+00 SKIN TOTAL 90
.5.02E-01 2.96G-01 4.97F-1 l
- 0.
0*.
0*.
0*.
5.02E-01
- 0.
- 0.
0*
0
- 7-1
- 0.
U.
C.29+0 Doses above are based upon semi-infinite plume model for gamma dose.
Use of the finite plume model for the stack release point increases the noble gas immersion gamma and total doses for each organ by 0.08 mrem/year.
4.32E-01 0..
4.26 -01 3.30-03 3.82- 02 6.47-3
- 3.
9 2 -
3 1.20 -2
- 4. 97 -o3 9.252-01 4.32E-01 2.2)
-0W' 4.77 -02 4.75 -53
.07 -0 3 1.0 43-03 54
- 3 9.37-7-01
CUAN:F ARNOLO TABLF i4 MAXIMUM TNOIVIrOUAL DOSES FROM EXPOSURE TO GASEOUS RELEASES COST-IENEFICIAL CASE --. RESIDENCE 2650 METERS WNW BONE LIVER THYROID KIONEY LUNG Rev 8/25/76 07/05/76 PAGE 3 OF 5 (MREM)
GI-LLI SKIN TOTAL B C -IL DR'EN
?0L GAS IMN"STON (GAMMA)
L ATIOM vTUOR FRUITS ANO V"GTARLES
.2ESH ;
iUTTF AND VPETV1LES (C 0 TA-1INAT.-fT Pr G
)
AT (un!T
!!AN T r1 r-E=
)
C MI3 1LK flrONTANTN CqPAGE)
C M'L<
(COITAMIN
'r D):
OTAL CHIL IL INFANTR OL -GA IMM'IOM (GANMA)
A-SAS I
1'1 (N ! FTA)
CG?0UND PLANIFE r0r70' INHAL;TION rCn'S ITLK (CfCTR-TN roArE)
C'tmS NJTL<
(COCNTA4TN
!7 7F 0)
T - T AL INF TS 4.32E--Gi 0*
4.26.
-0 2.0CF-03 2.212-02
- 3. 682-07 3 1 3 9,:3 1
6 21
+0 4*.32F-bi
- 0.
4.26E-01 2.56L 42-03
- 1. 082-01
- 3.
E - 0 1.01F+ 00 4.32E-01 U.
4.26E-01
- t. 322-01
- q. 262-01 6.6-0 3 1.14E-G1 4.31E-02 1.-02 E+00 4.32E-01 0*
4.26G-01 2.72E-01
- 1. 466-01 1.03+0 5.63-02 1.81r-03 4
00 6.40.E-03 2,.86E+00O 4.32E-01
- 0.
4.2(E-0i 1.020+01 1.37E-02
.3 -01
- 0.
4.26E,-0 C 1.56 303 1
75E 02 2.*862-03 1.412-02 25 E
'~1- 0 1 3.32c-031 0*.
4*262-01 1.i E- 03
- 1. 41 - 02 3. 32E-C 3 8.77C-01
- 4. 32E-01.
0*
4.,26E-01 1.402-02 3.82E-02 1.93C-0G3 1.98-03 1
A7 C-03 8.99E-03 7. 20E-03 9. 32E-01
- 4. 32E-01
- 0.
4.262-01 2.07E-02
- i. 99E-02
- 1. 572-02 9.14E-01 4.322-01 0*
7.862-04 2.722-01
- 1. 49F-02 3.93S-03 2.5.3
-03 6.45F-03 1.17E+-00 4.322-01 0*1 4.26201 7.21.4 1.*562-02 1 28-02 8.87-01 5.022-01 2.96E-04 4.97-01
- 0.
- 0.
- 0.
- 0.
- 0.
0*
0*
1.29E000
- 5. 022-01 2.9G6-01 4.97E-01
- 0.
- 0.
0*
1.2924+00 Doses above are based upon semi-infinite plume model for gamma dose.
Use of the finite plume model for the stack release point increases the noble gas immersion gamma and total doses for each organ by 0.08 mrem/year.
4.32E-01 00 4.25P-01 1.73C-13 7.z37:-02 6. 24E-03 3.042-03 2.28-03 2.240-32 8.52:-33' 4 32 -01
- 0.
4.26,7 i.72-A3T 3.30:-02 1.49;-02 9.13E-01
Rev 8/25/76 DUANj A~NOLDl 07/05/76 TABLE 3-14 MAXIMUM INDIVIOUAL DOSES $ROM EXPOSURE TO GASEOUS RELEASES COST-I5NEFICIAL CASE RESIDENCE 3000 METERS NE PAGE 4 OF 5 (MREM)
PATHwAY/AG=
nGfOU'P RONE LIVER THYROID KIONEY LUNG GI-LLI SKIN TOTAL 3 ADULTS t.O LE S IGAESRION (AMMA)
SN^LF GAS IMMERTON (f)T rcrOU:!D rLA tC onlTION FTPrED FRUTTS A
'lcD 'ITA:LES Mr:SH FPT UTS A7. A GT 0 TABLS
- ET (C 'T'TIAT5ED COTArE) r T (t0NTA IN T I F r)
CO-S ^ I TLK (CO-nNTAMN !
ED)
T"TAl: 6-ULTS NO PL2 GA3 IMMER'TON (AMTA)
~ T~'
?~O\\I C32A)
GoU4ND PLMIE ntOITrON T r;- 4 LAT I 0 ST) T D ' =!'PoU1IT S A ND V1 1-1A BL ES 7-3SH FRUT T^
VN' GTPLL0S A
-T
("OUIrATAMr'TF) F SF')
C u TL< (rCONTAprN A E)
CmO: "ILK (CrNTAMIN nED)
TOTAL TE 7AG- "
2.2F65-01
- 0.
2.*19E -01 1.92:-03 9*62E-02 1.82E-02 5.33 -03
- 1. 66F -02 8.50 03 2.267-01
- 0.
2192 -01 1
4,1F~03 1.237-01
- 1. 43-2 1..942-03
- 1. 13E-03
- 2. 15E-02 7.32F-03
- 6. 15F-01 2.26E-01 2.19E-01 7
9 4 2 0 2 7.91E5
-03
- 7. 17E-0 3 3 *0 7 -C 3
1.73
- 0- 3 1.58E3-02
.71 E -03.
5.21E-01 2 26
-01.
- 0.
t 5
I.9 2 5.422-02 6.13F-03 2.2803 1.32-03 2.66E02 9.58E3 2 26E-01
- 0.
1.*1 45-01 4.655-02 8.552-01 5.17-02 1.001-03 1.4'-E+00
- .3 L E-03 3 2
9E+00 2.2C<-01
- 0.
2
-0 6.672-02 6.595-01 35 5E'- 02 7.7n-0 4
2.181+00 2.*215-03
.2 26E-01
- 0.
2.192-01 2.17E-03 1
5,3E- 02 6.59E- 03 1.712-03 1. 2f L- 02 2
- 7 2 F-0 ~
4.872--0 2. 26E-0i
- 0.
2.1L
- 01 1.525-03 1 8 '52 2
4.32-03 1.3E-03
- 7. 156-04 1.60E-2 2 3
5 2-0 3
- 4. q I G1 2.?6E-01
- 0.
2.192-01 8
E15E-03 9.*095-03 1.152-3 1 22E-03 1.065-03 2.1 7E-03
+/-.59F-03 4.69E-01 2.26E-01 0.
2 19-0i 7
. 88 -03
, 77E-02 5
8 9 C -03
- 9. 5 8 -04 8 *37E-04 2
951-033
- 2. 32E-01 S* 55-01
- 2. 26E-01
- 0.
2.i9E-01 8.78E-04 2.14E-01 2.96E-02 7
85E:0 3
- 3.57E-03 4.68z-03 I.93E-03 7.08c-01 2.26E-01 0*.
2.195-01 5.672-0C4 2.63E-01 1.*99E-02 4.29-03 2.06-G3 E.15 2-03 2.812-C3 7*4 5 -01 2.62E-01 1.54E-31 2.56c-01
- 0.
- 0.
- 0.
- 0.
- 0.
6.7E 0
6.72E-01 2.62E-0 1 2.56-31
- 0.
0*.
- 0.
- 0.
- i.
- 0.
6.72E-0 1
- 2. 26E-01
- 0.
2.£9E*01 1 73E-03
- 3.
495-12 6.025-03 2.73:1-j33
- 2. G.E-03.
1.11E-12 5.03-1 2.26 E01 20*
4*2 03 1.825-03 1.183-03 1.*37 -02 5.162-03 5.ib65-01
TAnLE 3-iJ4 MAXIMUM INIlVIOUAL DOSES FROM EXPOSURE TO GASEOUS RELEASES COST-8UNEFICIAL CASE --
PESIDENCE 3000 METFRS NE LIVER THYROID KIONEY LUNG Rev 8/25/76 07/05/76 PAGE 5 OF 5 (MP.FM)
GI-LLI SKIN TOTAL BODY CHIL'R; N N00 GL AS '7 1MillRSTfN
( G AM-M A) 7OL= GAS I MPSIT (R!TA),
r-CUIJ PLANV 0 DCSTION h
STCO2D FRUTS AIL VEGETABLFS
- 4. T IC! T T 'N T ;-
F I AG
)
E AT (CONTAM INAT FT n)
CT-E T K (CONATIN e
)N T'2TAL CHILVon I'1 A TS C L GAS I N 3TO '
GAI-MMA)
POOLEGAS MMERTON
('ETA)
INHALATITN r CO MI7L' (CONTA"'4 OPA E) rON.
ILK (CONT4AMIN r F
)
TnTAL TNFLNTc 2 *26E-01 0*.
'2.192-01 1.03E-0 3 2.60E-01 2.41r-02
- 3. 372-3 5.03E-02?
1,69E-02 3 03E-.11 2.26F-01
- 0.
2.192-01 1
3.: -03
- 1. 0t2--01 3.50E-U2 5.85E-01 2 26E-01 U.
2.19E-01 3.47E-03 9.612 -02
2.19E-01 3.21E-03
- 1. 06C-01 3.83E-02 5.93E-01 2.26E-01 0.
2.19-01 1.372-01 I.36-01 9.9 0E-01 1.46E-03 4.*335+00 5.2?5E-03 6.102+00 2.26E-31
- 0.
2.19 -01 2.35E-01 1.052+01
.1.13ET02 I 12E+J1 2
- 0.
2.19E-01 8.04E-04 1. 53E-j,2 2.68E- 03 6.50L-04
- 4. 5iE- 04 i
2- 02 2.90E -03 4 81E-C 2.262-01
- a.
2 19 -01 5 66 C-C4 1.22-U2 2.90E-03 4.622-01 2.26E0-i
- 0.
2.19E-01
- 7. 14E-03 3.17E-02 1.602-03 1. 62-03 1.520-03 7.66-03 5.99E-03 5.022-01
- 2. 26E-01
- 0.
2.192-01 1.050-02 1.71F-02 1.31F-02
- 4. 96E-01 2.26-01
- 0.
2.19E-01 4.112-04 2.52E-01 1.392-02 3. 45:-
3 2.17E-03 7.992-03 5.292-23 7
30
-01 2.262-01 U.
2.19E-01 3.822-04 1.322-02 1 042F 4. 69E-01 2.62S-01 1.54E-01 2.55E-01
- 0.
0-.
- 0.
- 0.
- 0.
- 0.
- 0.
6.729-01 2.62E-01 1i.4E-01
- 0.
- 0.
- 0.
6.72E*-1 2.26E-01
- 0.
2.19-01
- 9. 10:-04 6.592-02 5.P1E-03 2. 62E-03 1.902*3 E
2.052-2 7.23E-03 5.505-01 2.26E*
- 0.
0 2.19 -01 S.98E-04 3. 47-02 i.2L'E-02 4.93E-01 I
nUAN-c -"O'OLD P3TW4AY/aGE5 GDOUP
.4 0
Rev 8/25/76 Table 3-19 Indicated Cost-Beneficial Treatment System SJAE Gland Seal Drywell Turbine Bldg Auxiliary (Reactor) Bldg Radwaste Bldg Indicated Treatment Operate as at present with at least two fewer beds Present Design Present Design Discard without treatment-Present Design Discard without treatment-Present Design Remove HEPA and discard w/o treatment 3-50